| 11. |
A 2022-10-05 08:44:57 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
I agree that most of our 200+ [hon] terms are also "formal or literary", but I'm not really fussed if an entry has both.
As to whether we need yet-another change in the litf->form-> ??? tagging, probably best to raise it as an issue. I'm comfortable with it now. |
| 10. |
A* 2022-10-01 08:27:41 Marcus Richert <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
Maybe it'd be better to change [form] to [written] (if we want to avoid confusion with [lit]) and have the description be
"written or formal language"? |
| 9. |
A* 2022-10-01 04:59:07 Marcus Richert <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
I agree (another's) xxx is probably a good way of formatting entries like these. |
| 8. |
A* 2022-10-01 04:58:27 Marcus Richert <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
There's obviously an overlap between [hon] and the word "formal" - I'd say it's fair to describe all [hon] words as "formal", and from that perspective alone it makes sense to me not tag this as [form]. But far from all [hon] words are "literary" or only used in written form. I feel it's important to have a tag that signifies to users that if they should ever say this word out loud, they're most likely to be met with nothing but blank stares. I don't see any issues with tagging words like this both [hon] and "literary". And the tag we use for "literary" words is [form]. The tags here signify entirely different things. |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<misc>&form;</misc> |
| 7. |
A 2022-10-01 03:50:20 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
Looks OK. |
|
(show/hide 6 older log entries)
|
| 6. |
A* 2022-09-30 23:05:29 Robin Scott <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Refs: |
literary: (of language) associated with literary works or other formal writing |
| |
Comments: |
I didn't forget to the meaning of the tag. It's just that we haven't used "form" on any other "hon" entries (as far as I know), even though many of them could be described as literary/formal. The line between "literary" and "formal" is rather fine.
I agree that the gloss format isn't ideal. How about this? |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -13,3 +13 @@
-<gloss>your mother</gloss>
-<gloss>his mother</gloss>
-<gloss>her mother</gloss>
+<gloss>(another's) mother</gloss> |
| 5. |
A* 2022-09-29 22:34:03 Marcus Richert <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
our description of [form] is "formal or literary term". Many words are honorific without being literary. Maybe it was a mistake to change litf to form if even people on the editorial team forget the intended meaning?
(we should also come to an agreement on how to format these hon entries - many are "(your) xxx" but there's lots of variations on that theme. I'm not a fan of Robin's take as it increases the complexity of the entry without being complete) |
| 4. |
A 2022-09-29 21:57:41 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
Probably not. |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -12 +11,0 @@
-<misc>&form;</misc> |
| 3. |
A* 2022-09-29 21:40:29 Robin Scott <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
Is "form" needed on an "hon" entry? |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -14 +14,3 @@
-<gloss>your (his) mother</gloss>
+<gloss>your mother</gloss>
+<gloss>his mother</gloss>
+<gloss>her mother</gloss> |
| 2. |
A 2022-09-28 21:42:06 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
| 1. |
A* 2022-09-28 02:12:59 Marcus Richert <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Refs: |
gakkoku |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -11,0 +12,2 @@
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<misc>&hon;</misc> |